Political Violence in Syria And Iraq - Essay Example

 Political Violence In Syria And Iraq What Sparked the Syria Revolution? The Syrian revolution began in 2011as an Arab protest against President Bashar al-Assad’s government administration. The Arabs claimed that Bashar’s administration was oppression them by failing to make reforms that would diffuse political power to other leaders and economic policies that would benefit all citizens. The uprising soon became a national protest. The government responded with violence, causing the militarization of the revolution, after months of political siege. The US-led military intervention on Iraq civil wars of 2003 aimed to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, end oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein and give freedom to Iraqis. This paper will discuss the causes of the Syrian revolution and identify factors that led to militarization of the revolution. It will also discuss the impact of the US-led military intervention on Iraq politics and reasons behind ethnic and sectarian tension in Iraq. Factors that sparked and caused the Syria Revolution It is believed that the Syrian civil war was sparked by school boys. The boys were discussing the uprising that had engulfed Syria, expressing their frustration that their nation was ruled by the repressive Assad’s family. Bashir Abazed, painted in huge letters a defiant message that was aimed at President Bashar Assad, (Lischer & Kenyon 2007). The defiant message written in Arabian was translated to mean it is your turn doctor. Another teenager a slogan saying ‘down with Bashir as-Assad’. The government responded to the protests with violence and shooting, that led to death of many people. This forced the protests to spread to the rest of Syria. Political repression was a major cause for rebellion and protests among the citizens. When President Bashar assumed power in 2000 after his father’s death, he promised people to make reforms that would better their lives. The reforms were needed since his family had retained political power since the year 1970 and left citizens with little power to participate in decision-making. Syria had a one-party-political system that was heavily dominated by the Assad’s family. Bashir failed to deliver on his promise of better reforms to diffuse power and give citizens more political say over decisions that affected them directly (Mintz & Alex 2004). The poor economic situation in Syria also caused the revolution. The government reforms opened doors to private investors. The privatisation favoured families that had close links to the Assad’s family. (Carothers &Thomas 2003) thereby angering citizens. Another cause was a persistent drought that devastated the farming communities in the north-eastern Syria. The drought affected many families since the year 2008. Many families were impoverished by the drought and flocked the urban slums. The farmers were angered by the government’s lack of assistance (Moaddel & Mansoor 2009). The minority rule also led to the Syrian revolution. Despite Syria being a majority Sunni Muslim country, top leadership positions were held by Alawis, a Shiite religious minority to which Bashar’s family belonged. The government media censorship rub the citizens wrongly. The Syrian government had censored the media, thereby determining the content that could be aired in the televisions, radios and even on social media. The censorship limited the media’s authority to report oppressive things that the government engaged in (Landis & Joshua 2012) What Caused the Militarization of the Syrian Revolution? A major cause for the militarization of the Syrian revolution was the growing impatience of the Arab Gulf leaders with the futility of actions by the West and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The West i.e. the USA and other superpowers favoured non-violent ways of resolving the conflicts. They had promised to use peaceful ways such as dialogue and peaceful negotiations to solve the conflicts. However, their actions were unfruitful and the protests and unrest continues. In addition, the United Nations Security Council was unable to contain the revolution, leading to further frustrations (Leenders & Reinoud 2012). Since the Arab Gulf Leaders were interested in a peaceful Syria and the actions of the west and the UNSC, they favoured a militarization of the revolution so that the people would fight fairly with the government had had advanced military weaponry that it used to supress the rebellion. Another cause for the militarization of the Syrian revolution was the continued unchecked brutality of the Syrian regime against its own people led to the militarization of the Syrian revolution. The government had grown hostile to its people and killed the protesters at will. When the people protested against the arrest of the teenagers, the government responded with violence and many people were killed. The government continues killing the protesters despite the fact that they didn’t not have the military weaponry that the government possessed (Fawn 2006). In addition, Bashar’s administration was very hostile to leaders of protest movements. These leaders would be captured and tortured to serve as an example to others. The government only availed economic activities to its sympathizers and corruption increased the oppression that the citizens went through. Since the government was growing insensitive and violent everyday resulting to mass killings and torture, the people decided to raise arms to stop the brutality of the regime. The militarization of the Syrian revolution was also fuelled by the abuse of human rights and freedom. The government abused people’s rights at will and with no proper cause. For example, the seizure and torture of the teenagers who sparkled the revolution was an abuse of human rights. The government locked them and tortured them for hours on end without giving them a court trial. The government abused the right to life by killing unarmed protesters and their sympathizers. The freedom of expression was abused by government media censorship and the resulting confinement of defiant media personalities (Hinnebusch 2012). This ensured that the international community failed to know the abuse of human rights orchestrated by Bashar’s administration. Therefore, the people turned to violent means to stop the government from abusing their rights, since the international community could not help them in this pursuit for freedom of speech and upholding human rights. Impact of the US-Led Military Intervention on Iraqi Politics. The US-led military intervention on Iraqi politics had major negative outcomes. One major impact was the massacres that accompanies the entry of the US troops in Baghdad. According to casualty figures, more Iraqis died during the 64th armoured rampage in the Iraqi capital on the April 5th 2003 than were killed in the brutal 10-day US assault on the Fallujah city in November 2004. The US invasion caused the Iraqi rebels to kill any person who was rumoured to be a sympathizer to the opposition. The US troops also killed many Iraqi rebels, causing the death toll to rise. Another impact was the decision to disband the Iraqi armed forces, the only national institution in Iraq led to unemployment (Pedersen & Duncan 2002). Many people who were employed by the armed forces found themselves jobless after the force was disbanded by the US. This increased poverty levels, desperation and hostility of people towards each other and to their government. US invasion therefore led to widespread poverty and frustration from unemployment and the massacre that followed the US intervention. The US-led military intervention on Iraqi politics had an impact of causing adverse political incitement. The incitement of the US forces of wholesale looting, arson, murder and anarchy in Baghdad and other major cities fuelled more unrest and violence. The anarchy and violence that resulted from these criminal activities aimed more lives. In addition, it caused incalculable damage to the Iraqi cultural and historical heritage. The long-term effects of the US incitement into looting and property destruction was a slump in the economy. The Iraqi economy fell into a major depression that took a long a long time to recover (Horowitz & Donald 2005). The poor economic state forced the country into deep poverty, making it depend on foreign aid for mere survival during the initial economic recovery period. Another impact was an increase in terror in Iraqi villages and towns. The US invasion and intervention unleashed untold terror to Iraqi people in 2003. The terror included searches, night raids, mass detention and criminal torture at prisons such as the Abu Ghraib that were designed to humiliate and break the will of the people. Reasons Behind the Sectarian and Ethnic Tensions In Iraq The major reason behind sectarian and ethnic tension was divisive policies in Saddam Hussein’s regime. These policies laid seeds for political tension between the Shiite majority and Sunni minority. Saddam inflamed sectarian divisions by reserving top army and government positions to Sunnis against the Shiite majority. Saddam’s administration was controlled by a group of Sunni officials from Takrit. Soon, political power became closely tied to religious identity despite the regime’s secular nationalist ideologies (Carothers &Thomas 2003). The political heat increased when Iraqi’s Shiite Islamist opposition started to openly oppose Saddam’s regime because it was secular and authoritarian. Saddam responded by brutal actions targeting Shiite religious leaders. Saddam’s brutality alienated the Shiite majority thereby, laying seeds of resentment and sectarian mistrust. The sectarian and ethnic tension were increased by the catastrophic management of Iraq by the US-led coalition forces after the 2003 invasion The US-led invasion destroyed the old older and enabled the Shiite Islamist parties to gain power via free elections. The former Sunni leaders were displaced by rival Shiite politicians (Mintz & Alex 2004). The Sunnis felt side-lined and accused the Shiite of collaborating with foreigners. At the same time, the US-led interim authorities made mistake of disbanding the Iraqi army, therefore rendering many officers unemployed. This created frustrations and discontentment with the political administration. The government passed the de-Baathfication laws that barred former officials from state employment and benefits. The excluded Sunnis remained bitter, repressive and responded violently to the Iraqi government. Another reason that increased sectarian and ethnic tension was the struggle for power. Sunnis Islamist extremists began to target Shiite civilians. A bomb attack at a Shiite shrine in Samarra town triggered a retaliation attack by Shiite militias, resulting in open conflict in religious mixed areas. The two rivals fought each other die to political and religious differences (Lischer & Kenyon 2007). Enmity between them increased as the Shiite leaders excluded the former Sunni leaders from state affairs, employment and government benefits. The Sunni Islamist extremists retaliated with violence as they tried to seize power from the Shiite majority so that they can enjoy government benefits and participate in leadership. The exclusion from leadership and the desire to gain control once more increased sectarian and ethnic animosity in Iraq. Conclusion There are many factors that fuelled the Syrian revolution and the Iraq invasion. Strong factors that fuelled political violence in the two countries were poor economic conditions, political oppression, struggle for power and religious tension. In both countries the Sunnis, who were a minority religious sect had powerful political positions. The Shiite, a majority religious group resented being ruled by the Sunni and rebelled constantly, causing political and religious tensions. The intervention of the international community into the political violence had profound impact that was majorly negative. For example, the UNSC and the West responded with strategies that failed to address political problems in Syria, thereby resulting in the militarization of the revolution. In Iraq, the US-led military intervention led to massacres, negative political incitement and the disbandment of the armed forces. The major causes of the sectarian and ethnic tension in Iraq were struggle for power and religious tension. In both countries, political violence resulted in death and human suffering, economic depression and ethnic divisions that increased mistrust. References Carothers, Thomas. 2003. "Promoting democracy and fighting terror." Foreign affairs: 84-97. Fawn, Rick, and Raymond A 2006. “Hinnebusch, eds. The Iraq war: causes and consequences”. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Hinnebusch, Raymond. 2012. "Syria: from ‘authoritarian upgrading’to revolution?."International Affairs 88, no. 1: 95-113. Horowitz, Donald L. 2005. “Ethnic groups in conflict”. Univ of California Press. Landis, Joshua. 2012. "The Syrian Uprising of 2011: Why the Asad Regime Is Likely to Survive to 2013." Middle East Policy 19, no. 1: 72-84. Leenders, Reinoud. 2012. "Collective Action and Mobilization in Dar'a: An Anatomy of the Onset of Syria's Popular Uprising." Mobilization: An International Quarterly17, no. 4 419-434. Lischer, Sarah Kenyon. 2007. "Military intervention and the humanitarian “force multiplier”." Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 13, no. 1 99-118. Mintz, Alex. 2004. "The Decision to Attack Iraq A Noncompensatory Theory of Decision Making." Journal of Conflict Resolution 37, no. 4: 595-618. Moaddel, Mansoor. 2009. “Class, politics, and ideology in the Iranian revolution”. Columbia University Press. Pedersen, Duncan. 2002. “Political violence, ethnic conflict, and contemporary wars: broad implications for health and social well-being." Social science & medicine 55, no. 2: 175-190. Read More